This is a beautiful example of why people shouldn't be too quick to tag cultural borrowings as "appropriation." They often result in a back-and-forth cross-pollination that bears novel hybrid fruit we can all enjoy.
Cross-pollination like this is, I dare say, universally loved and recognized as vital.
Generally when people speak of "cultural appropriation" it's a situation where you have a majority and/or oppressing group capitalizing on the culture of a minority and/or oppressed group.
Think of the difference between two prison inmates building on each others' ideas is collaboration, and a prison guard stealing their music.
Actually, that’s a good gut check to test whether emancipatory movements have lost their plot: how often do their prescriptions hinge on identity.
Every belief, good or bad, has a lunatic fringe that takes that belief to some stupid extreme.
If we judge every belief by its most deluded lunatic fringe, then we would be forced to conclude that there are literally zero beliefs or ideas worth subscribing to. The lunatic fringe is always there, and it is always scary and/or really, really dumb.
Learn to recognize the fringe.
I think perhaps the importance of that depends on how... unified the group is, you know?
If there are 3 people at a dinner table and one of them is acting badly, definitely hold the other 2 accountable.
If there are 1,000,000 people in a political party and 1% of them are acting badly, I think the 99% and the leaders are somewhat responsible.
If there's a vague concept like "cultural appropriation" or "cringeworthiness" that isn't owned by anybody, I don't know how practical it is for people using the term to really have responsibility for people that misuse it.
At some point there's just a practical limit I think.
The idea there is a mass movement of people saying other people tan too much is beyond delusional.
I think the issue, as illustrated in replies to you, is that many people's only exposure to conversations about cultural appropriation are extreme examples brought to their attention by someone seeking to highlight how absurd they are (or more typically, get some click revenue) and not necessarily representative
Also various social media algorithms certainly contribute to it, as they favor engagement over all.
Folks claiming the idea of "cultural appropriation" is absurd, because they heard that "eating sushi" or "getting a deep tan if you're white" are "cultural appropriation" and so therefore the whole idea is dumb.
It's about as valid as claiming that Linux users are maniacs because hey, I heard there was this one creepy dude at a conference once and he used Linux.
If it is actual members of the culture complaining, it makes much more sense than when non members are complaining on their behalf.
That's a pretty tortured metaphor.
Would it be morally ok for the prisoners to steal the guard's music?
What if cultural borrowing is the societal precursor to acceptance and integration?
That's a pretty tortured metaphor.
Would it be morally ok for the prisoners to steal the guard's music?
What if cultural borrowing is the societal
precursor to acceptance and integration?
I hope you are not misunderstanding the concept of cultural appropriation to mean that you should literally never collaborate with or incorporate outside influences? If so then, well, good news - it's not that.
If you know dancehall and even an outsiders view of rasta culture, I read the article as using a bit of trivia as an attempt at a kind of ideological castration of dancehall music by retelling its origins and attributing credit for it not to a black rastafarian man in Jamaica, but to an asian woman in Japan. Rastafarian masculinity is problematic for american black progressives, and the article seemed consitent with their cultural unmooring project.
While the objection to the metaphor a reasonable challenge - that the metaphor has underlying complexity doesn't diminish it for me.
We don't know who wrote "Rolling Down to Old Maui" or "Drunken Sailor," other than that they were popular in the 19th century. They both share tunes with other songs that predate them, just like how there are multiple songs that use the same tune as "The Wearing of the Green." Countless people have performed and rearranged them, and the world only benefits from it.
Everything in art is inherently memetic, building upon the work of others and evolving.
"Until the people sing them, the songs, songs are not, and when the people sing them, then nobody knows the author.
Try that your songs end up with the people, even if they stop being yours to belong to others.
That, by melting the heart in the people soul, what is lost in name one gains in eternity."
---
Cultural appropriation is the inappropriate or unacknowledged adoption ...
cultural appropriation differs from acculturation, assimilation, or equal cultural exchange ...
the concept is often misunderstood or misapplied by the general public, and that charges of "cultural appropriation" are at times misapplied to situations such as trying food from a different culture or learning about different cultures
---
It feels like you want to make a point and I feel like I know what it is, but I could be wrong.
If we both define what's appropriate, and our definitions don't match, how should that disagreement be settled?
Ultimately everything is somewhat of consensus in society, right? I mean, even near-universal truths like "murder is generally bad" or "helping your neighbors is good" are just sort of things most societies kind of agree on.
Sometimes those consensuses (consensi?) change over time. Marijuana was legal for centuries, and then it wasn't, and now it kind of is again.
Sometimes the consensus is crap. In a lot of places there used to be a societal consensus that marrying your 13 year old cousin, or stoning religious heretics to death was cool.
If you've really done the work, and really explored why the groups affected by cultural appropriation think it's kind of a shitty thing to do, and you really just think they're just being crybabies or liars, and you're making an informed decision to disagree then, hey, cool.
Might not agree with you but if everybody put that much thought into things the world would be a better place.
how should that disagreement be settled
Example: suppose I like to use slur XYZ because it's funny to me, and I think humor is a great way to bridge the gaps between people, and it would be better if we all decided to simply not let words hurt us. (I actually do feel that way!)
But a lot of people from group ABC feel like it's pretty crappy for me to use XYZ.
I could just simply think they're being oversensitive, and keep saying XYZ but like... is using XYZ really that important to me? It's pretty easy for me to stop using a word. That's a pretty small cost. If it might do some good, or at least make somebody else's day better, fuck it. I'm generally happy to pay that small cost.
Obviously she meant no harm and saw it as a tribute; a sign of appreciation.
A few people told her why it was not cool. She didn’t really understand/agree. But it’s also like: did she really need to make dream catchers? So, she relented, and just made different crafts.
Moral being: she disagreed with the “consensus”, but still recognized that hey - it really did amount to to stepping on another groups’ toes, at least in their eyes, so why not just stop doing it?
She wasn’t shamed, or canceled, or throw in jail. She just acted in a way she felt was for the common good. Didn’t cost her anything.
> A few people told her why it was not cool.
Were those people Native American?
Reason why I say it's not super relevant in this particular case? As a white person, it would be ridiculous for me to attempt to speak for Native Americans or any other group. But it would be perfectly OK for me to say e.g. "hey, I think a lot of Native Americans aren't cool with white people making 'dream catchers' -- maybe look into that? Also here are some links to Native Americans talking about it?"
I can’t really speak for you. I don’t know your opinions! You didn’t ask me to be your spokesperson. Cool? Makes sense?
But, I remember that one time you said you’re allergic to nuts.
Next year, somebody’s making cookies for the office. He asks what kind of cookies everybody likes. He’s thinking of making macadamia nut cookies. You’re out of the office that day.
“Oh, I’m not sure what kind of cookies hn_ta_234465 likes,” I say. “But I do remember that he’s allergic to nuts.”
Does that make sense? I’m not your spokesman and it would be weird/rude to put words in your mouth. But it makes 100% sense for me to refer to something you’ve already said.
Simple.
Instead, there are a sizable number of Native Americans who would prefer that white people don't capitalize on their spiritual practices. And then there are many who aren't all that invested in the matter, and simply don't care, but you're not going to disrespect or hurt or belittle them by respecting the others.
So there's a pretty clear course of action, for those who are willing to give half a shit about others, but that's definitely a choice that we all have to make on an individual basis.
You can choose not to care, or not care.
You can also tell yourself that you do care but they're being dumb. That one gets extra cool points.
There are no Native Americans making money from such activities? Looks like you do speak for them after all! You can guarantee that not a single one of them sells dreamcatchers.
Are the number of Indians excoriating Westerners for appropriating yoga "sizable", or not?
There are quite a few native americans who find it wack when people, especially those belonging to the culture that took their land and more or less genocided them, co-opt their cultural symbols.
There are also a lot of native americans who don't care, probably some who think it's neato and a lot of native americans for whom the entire issue gets a big old "not applicable" because it's a big continent and "native american" is not a monolithic culture and not all of them give a shit about dream catchers.
Ultimately, it's up to you. You can decide to give a shit about the N% of native americans who feel it's wack for white people to make dream catchers, or you can decide they're a bunch of whiny crybabies who aren't qualified to make decisions about their own culture, and open a big ol' dream catcher factory within spitting distance of your nearest reservation. A lot of people will think you're a dick, and probably a lot of people will think you're a totally cool dude who just owned the libs.
> There are also a lot of native americans who don't care...
> You can decide to give a shit about the N% of native americans who feel it's wack for white people to make dream catchers...
Okay, I decide to listen to the group of native americans who don't care. What now? Are you going to respect my choice, or is it still going to be a problem--and if so, why is it a problem, given that you've told me several times that it's my choice?
Let's assume you had chosen a better example, such as abusing a religious symbol as the logo of a nightclub...
But there is also a whole lot of mindless calling-out going on regarding cultural appropriation. Most uses of imported cultural material are not meant to denigrate or minimize and don't do so by accident. "Stealing" culture is a stupid concept. Culture cannot be stolen, only disseminated.
But there is also a whole lot of mindless calling-out
going on regarding cultural appropriation
I mean, what do you want to hear? Literally anything you want to do with anybody else's culture is okay and you don't even have to think about it because it's literally impossible for it to be anything but okay?
There is a middle ground in which we agree that hey, some things are okay and some are better avoided.
The wikipedia clarifies very well the concept of appropriation and how it's not a matter of theft.
There is no meaningful comparison between the use of racial slurs and cultural appropriation.
It’s not even a straw man. They just aren’t analogous.
In another key way they’re absolutely similar: they are modes of expression that (in the eyes of some) harm other groups or (in the eyes of others) are not a big deal. And there are an awful lot of grey areas and nobody agrees on the definitions.
We know that slurs are meant to denigrate.
We not only don’t know that appropriation is intended to do harm. For any given claim of appropriation, we don’t even know that it does harm, nor that members of the group perceive it that way in general.
There really is no comparison at all, and it seems like your argument is that they are similar in that people disagree about them, which is not a meaningful point.
https://www.google.com/search?q=japanese+cholo+culture&sourc...
Many modern works completely lift sounds and rebrand them as founded by someone else new. That is where the problem lies in modern appropriation. It's sad that social media now encourages people to completely copycat ideas and totally steal credit for innovation...
We should support original culture and artists just as much as those who sample them.
Any knowledge or innovation could be “stolen” and used by someone else, whether its origin is cultural or not.
Using the possibility of value extracting theft as a reason why (certain) people should never find inspiration in (certain other) cultures… is just bigoted and nonsensical. It’s racist territorialism.
Especially when all culture is built on something that came before anyway.
If reggae has been around this long yet Sting, UB40, Boy George, Snow, 311, Sublime, and Matisyahu are probably the people most Americans would think of as the best musicians making reggae music, it might show a bit of inherent cultural bias for both the industry and listeners...
Hence, if Sting stole musical licks from specific performer(s), that's a problem. If those people would've been entitled to compensation but for the fact that they were poor island countryfolk incognizant of their rights, that's a problem. But if he just borrowed his musical aesthetic from reggae or from "Jamaican culture," that seems morally uncontroversial to me. Maybe musically derivative, but that's a matter of taste.
most of the segregationists just need inspiration and aren’t as exclusionary as they’ve been led to